Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Double predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has a non-neutral point of view, is unreferenced, and contradicts the Hyper-calvinism page on Wikipedia. StAnselm 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, merging any useful, verifiable material into related articles. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge to Hyper-calvinism, seems most logical. While non-neutral, unreferenced, and contradictory are not per se reasons to delete, I don't see any hope for this article. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Predestination. Most people wouldn't think of looking under "Hyper-Calvinism", which sounds like too much Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs for breakfast anyway.  I'm more in favor of keep because it's a legitimate link from Calvinism, Hyper-C, and predestination. Mandsford 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hear your point, Mandsford, but I'd argue that the article is somewhat muddled and doesn't have reliable, secondary sources to support its association with Hyper-Calvinism in the first place. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 04:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article has nothing to say about hyper-Calvinism, but rather uses the term sloppily and pejoratively.  No good reason has been given for splitting an article off from Predestination (Calvinism).  User:Avielh seems to want more space so that he can hit readers over the heads with dozens of direct, extended quotations, which is contrary to WP:QUOTE and WP:SOAP.  --BlueMoonlet 00:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete not a standard term for what is apparently ordinary Calvinist predestination--the "double" seems to mean merely that both the elect and the damned are predestined to their fate. the references given do not support the use of the term in the manner given. DGG (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (I'm not familiar with rules here so this is my effort), I've added external links, I've told Flex that this has nothing to do with ""Hyper-Calvinism", but it is accused as "hyper calvinist" in the sense that it supposedly overemphasize God's sovereignty erronously, it used to be just "Double Predestination", but if you look at papers on it, some use "Double Predestination" as what it really is (consistent with the article), some though use it to refer to a kindof single predestination ("reformed" understanding of Predestination, which they claim is double predestination while the other is hyper-calvinism). That's why I moved it to "Double Predestination (Hyper-Calvinist)" as opponents call it, and "Double Predestination" became a disambigious page. Avielh 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, its defined as "a view of Double Predestination where God predestined (or foreordained) those whom He rejects (reprobate) without regard to their sinful nature." ... because the Reformed view of Predestination (infralapsarian mostly), say that God chooses (as it were) from among sinful men, so that foreordination to wrath is passive... that's why I said "without regard to their sinful nature", that is God is choosing men without any consideration at all that they would be sinful because of the fall, He chose, then foreordains them to sin (without Himself being sinful) and to wrath. It's the only way (I could think of) to precisely diffrentiate it from Reformed Double Predestination (which uses the same terms differently- in a really confusing way).Avielh 15:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You say "it's defined" but you don't provide reliable sources that give this definition. External links are not the same as references, and the burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim (BTW, "Search google..." is not a valid reference; specific citations are needed). The rules are that if something is challenged or likely to be challenged then it must be documented from reliable sources. This AfD is challenging your understanding of the facts of the case (see WP:V and WP:OR) as well as the way in which it is stated (see WP:NPOV). Likely, the only way to prevent the article from being deleted is to prove the deleters wrong by citing your reliable sources explicitly inline. Disputed passages from the Bible and Calvin are not sufficient in this case since different groups come to different doctrines of predestination based on their understanding of them. Indeed the litany of verses that you added since the AfD started is more objectionable in my mind than the article without them because of neutrality concerns. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Whether the end result is keep or delete, it's God's will. Mandsford 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*Keep a proposal for deletion is not the appropriate response to an article which is simply badly written. --S.dedalus 01:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is not "simply badly written." It has no reason for existing (Predestination (Calvinism) is sufficient) except to provide a platform for User:Avielh's soapbox.  The article's very title is a misnomer, and no references are cited for framing the discussion in such terms.  --BlueMoonlet 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge I see your point. My vote is changed. --S.dedalus 02:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above as a POV fork, and redundant, and not simply poorly written. Bearian 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, merging any useful, verifiable material into related articles. This is soapboxing and more or less original research. Greswik 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant, poor quality, POV or SOAP or OR attempt at an article. If the concept can eventually be sourced and notable enough for a stand alone article, it would be better recreated from scratch. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.